Sony Pictures CEO: Internet needs regulatory “guardrails”

Shortly after saying that he saw nothing good in the Internet, the CEO of Sony …

There's a certain irony to the developing story of Michael Lynton's battle against the Internet. The CEO of Sony Pictures had told an audience attending a discussion of the future of filmmaking that he "doesn’t see anything good having come from the Internet." Those remarks were, naturally, widely criticized on various corners of the Internet, and Lynton has now turned to an Internet-only outlet, The Huffington Post, in order to respond to those critiques. Given the above, it's no surprise to find that Lynton actually is perfectly fine with the Internet; he just (surprise!) doesn't like piracy.

Reading his response suggests that the Internet has a specific value for Lynton, as his essay, which would have caused the person who taught my freshman year writing class fits, probably wouldn't have made the cut at media outlets that have stronger editorial standards. He spends the first eight paragraphs more or less implicitly disavowing his initial comments, saying that the 'Net is a good thing for humanity in general, and has even helped the content industry by helping to identify new talents and providing exciting prospects for new distribution models.

None of that, however, should be read as an indication that Lynton is ready to admit that his initial statement was a mistake, however. He's happy that the ensuing kerfuffle has given him the opportunity to speak out on the real problem, which is piracy. Piracy, he says, is harming the content industry, and is the real villain of the Internet. There's a far stronger case to be made for this argument, although it's clear that the content industries' hesitancy to embrace distribution methods that could compete with piracy hasn't helped their position.

With the problem identified, he moves on to offer a prescription. The root cause of piracy, in his view, is that society hasn't put any appropriate regulations in place for the Internet. "I'm not talking here about censorship, taxation or burdensome government restrictions," Lynton wrote. "I'm talking about reasonable boundaries, 'rules of the road,' that can help promote the many positive attributes of Internet technology while curtailing its hugely damaging effects."

The phrase "rules of the road" is more than just a casual metaphor; instead, it's the central thesis of his argument. The essay is entitled "Guardrails for the Internet" and contains a paragraph attempting to draw parallels between the regulation of traffic on the US interstate highway system and what he suggests is needed for the Internet.

As metaphors go, however, it's a pretty bad one. Lynton ignores the fact that the only reason enforcement is straightforward on the interstate is that the roadways are part of the public sphere, where it's possible to unobtrusively observe violations as they're committed. He also elides the fact that both regulations and enforcement vary on every level, from the local to the national, and some regulations, like speed limits, are widely ignored. In that sense, the roadways might make good model for content on the Internet, but it's precisely these dynamics that Lynton has just said are the problem.

Because he's apparently never met a metaphor he didn't like, Lynton also throws in one for users who turn to piracy out of frustration that content isn't available online. These individuals, he claims, are like looters who are frustrated that they want to purchase something after hours.

Lynton apparently wrote his editorial with the intention of showing that he does "get" the Internet. But, by producing an essay that's a mix of generalities and awkward metaphors, and by not offering any concrete solutions, he really has come across as someone who doesn't. Even for someone inclined to support the ability of content creators to be paid for their efforts, editorials like this tend to come across as an attempt to shift blame that should be widely shared.